The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-06

to her bonds had been rendered. To en-
Join the officers OF the commonwealth.
charged with the supervision and manage
mcnt OF legal proceeding in her behalf
from bringing suits In nCr name, is moth
ing less than To cnjoin the commonwealth
herself, for only by her officers can such
suits be instituted aud prosecuted.
at cannot Ice doubled" Justice Mat.
thcws says, speaking lor the court, "That
the eleventh amendment to the Consttu.
ton operates ia create an important dis
tmCtion between contracts oi n state with
individuals and contracts between indiyid-
ual parties. In contracts between State
and individuals, by virtue OF the eleventh
amendment To the constitution there be-
ing no remedy 10y q suit against the State
tho contract is substantially without
sanction except that which arises out OF
the honor and the good faith Of the State
itself, and these are mot suhjcc, tococrcions;
although the state may at the inception Of
the contract have consented to subject IT,
SELF to suit, il may subsequently withdraw
that consent and resume its original i'm.
munity without any violation OF the obi.
cation OF ils contract in the constitutional
sense. The very object aud purpose Of
the eleventh amendment were 10 prevent
the indignity Of suhjcctng Il state to the
cocrcivc process ot Judicial tribunals at
the instance ol private parties, II was
thought 20 ho neither becoming nor con.
vcnicnt that the several States, invested
with that largo Wsidum of sovereignty
which had mol been delegated to the United
States, should be- Summoned as defendant
TO answer the complaints OF private per
sons, or that the course of their public
policy and the administration OF their pub
lie affairs should zoe subject tO control 10y
the mandates OF judicial tribunals, without
their consent and in favor of individual
interests. by "a fair and liberal intcrprcla-
ton OF the eleventh amendment, IL must
bo held 10 cover not only suits brought
against n State 10y name, bat those also
against its representatives, whore the state,
though not named rs such, il nevertheless
the only rial party against which the judg-
mcnt or decree effectively operates, hut
this Is not intcndcl In any way To infringe
upon the principle which juslilics suits
aguinst individual defendants who, under
color Of the authority Of unconstitutional
legislation by the State, arr guilty vi per
sonal trcspass aud wrongs"
"lt need not be- appWhcndcd, Justice
Matthews saws, THAT the construction np-
piled to the eleventh amendment in this
case will cmharmss or ohs,ruct the cNccu.
ton Of laws OF the United States in eases
where State officers arr guilty Oi acting In
violation OF them, because the United
States deals with them M individuals
owing obedience 10 lis authority. Tho
penalties OF di.obcdicncc may be- visited
upon State officers without regard to the
character IN which they assume 10 act. OF
the nature OF the exemption they may
| plead. Nothing can bc intcrposcd be-.
tween the individual aud the obligation he
owes To the constitution aud laws Of the
United States. IT, therefore, a State officer,
under color Of State laws. comes into con.
dict with the superior authority aud valid
lawsoi the United States. hc J. stripped 81
his representative character and subjected
Ia the consequences 1T his conduct. The
State has no power Ia imprt tn him any
| immunity from responsibility 90 the "a
prcmc law al the 1 n,ied States"